A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed a three-year-old bribery lawsuit against the Houston school district and trustee Larry Marshall, ending the prospect of a high-profile jury trial.

U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison ruled in part that the construction contractor that sued lacked standing because the company did not prove it suffered financially. The Gil Ramirez Group alleged in its lawsuit that it lost its contract with the state's largest school district because it didn't pay bribes to Marshall.

Ellison, in his order, did not determine whether Marshall received improper payments but found that the Ramirez Group fell short of several legal standards needed to prove its case.

"Indeed," Ellison wrote, "from what evidence plaintiffs do provide... the most that can be said is that Marshall, if he did participate in a bribery scheme, did so to enrich himself, not as a way to discriminate against non-paying contractors."

According to court records and deposition testimony, some school district vendors paid thousands of dollars to a business associate of Marshall, who gave him a cut of her earnings. Marshall did not deny a business relationship with Joyce Moss-Clay but said it did not influence which firms won district contracts.

The judge also dismissed the case against Moss-Clay, 76.

Didn't seek re-election

The resolution of the lawsuit comes as Marshall, 81, prepares to exit the school board after 16 years.

He did not seek re-election this year, and his term expires in January.

"I am grateful for the ruling and thankful for the court's careful examination of the plaintiffs' allegations against me," Marshall said in a statement released by his attorney, Richard Morris.

Officials with the Houston Independent School District estimate HISD spent more than $1.5 million in legal fees defending the district and Marshall in the case, filed in December 2010.

Superintendent Terry Grier said he wants to seek reimbursement from the Gil Ramirez Group. A court would have to order such a deal.

Grier, in a district news release, also applauded the judge's ruling and praised Marshall.

"His legacy as a Houston educator and leader is preserved now that he is free from the cloud of suspicion of these claims," Grier said.

The next step

An attorney for the Gil Ramirez Group, Kelli Greenwood Prather, said she planned to discuss next steps, such as whether to appeal, with her client, Gil Ramirez Jr.

"The question remains how the law deals with how a hard-working company can lose their government business for refusing to pay a bribe to an elected official," she said.

Two construction contractors that also were sued in the case, Fort Bend Mechanical and RHJ-JOC, did not file recent dismissal motions.

The judge, in his 46-page order, said he was inclined to dismiss them as well but called for additional filings before ruling.

An attorney for RHJ, Michael Stanley, said he will file a brief with the court.

An attorney for Fort Bend Mechanical could not be reached.

In addition to Marshall's financial relationship with Moss-Clay, the lawsuit revealed that Marshall received a free trip to the 2009 Super Bowl in Florida paid for by Fort Bend Mechanical.

Court records also showed he failed to disclose a $25,000 campaign contribution from the same company's owner.

Ethics policies tighter

The HISD school board since has tightened its ethics policies, restricting gifts and requiring trustees to abstain from votes involving big campaign donors.

The Houston Chronicle reported in May that federal authorities had launched a criminal investigation related to the civil lawsuit, subpoenaing records and contacting a possible witness.

The judge's dismissal should not affect any criminal investigation, said Jimmy Ardoin, a Houston defense attorney not affiliated with the lawsuit.

In the civil case, Ardoin said, the lawyers had to clear a tough legal bar by arguing that Marshall and HISD violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

In his order, Judge Ellison said he had to dismiss the claims under that statute because the Gil Ramirez Group did not prove a clear financial loss as required.